Even though I have long passed the point in my addiction where I crave the boxed DVD set of all the GOP presidential debates from this television season, I am still unable to turn the channel when the Sirens call on the wind:
“Newt is here, come and frolic with us. Mitt, Paul and Santorum are all here to join in the fun . . .”
And so I sit in front of the tube, even though I wouldn’t vote for any of these guys for . . . well, anything, really. The phrase used to be, “I wouldn’t vote for this guy for dog catcher,” but just think about any of these guys running an animal shelter.
But enough of my chilling your bones; that’s their job.
As the debates grind on, and I watch Romney trying to sound trough, Newt refusing to answer questions and Santorum and Paul grateful for any at all questions that might fall through the grates and come their way, once again an inescapable thought comes to mind.
When the debates first began, there was an effort to include the great unwashed American public, by having questions from YouTube and other Internet sources. But then you get malcontents like that gay soldier, who brought forth the patriotic booing from the audience, and questions about times in the candidates’ lives when they faced real poverty - other than spiritual and intellectual poverty, that is.
Who are these people, asking these impertinent questions?
As the debates have gone on - and on and on - one can’t help but notice that the Internet folks no longer seem welcome at the party, and that the questions - the ones that candidates will even answer - all just seem drawn from the front pages of the daily newspapers.
Even though this is written for my blog, I’ll be posting the link on Facebook and on several listservs, where the level of debate can be a lot messier than the GOP debates, true, but also where the level of knowledge is often greater than that of the moderators, or so it seems from the questions they ask.
The debates I find on Facebook, with links to articles, are about subjects that the candidates never address, but should. Perhaps it is time they were?
I think it is time for a 100 per cent YouTube/Facebook/Yahoo/Twitter - hell, let’s even throw in My Space - debate, where none of the questions come from professional journalists, and all of the questions come from average American people, many of whom are very well-informed, thank you very much.
Now there is a debate I would record and watch over again in years to come.
Ain’t gonna happen, though.
Letting Newt be Newt
I was amused by one of the Newtsters key supporters whining on MSNBC that too much control was exerted over Monday night’s debate audience, and they couldn’t leap to their feet, applaud or even hoop and holler, I suppose like it was a county fair. He claimed it threw his candidate off his game.
And in truth, Comrade Gingrich did sort of look helpless up there at times, floundering around like a comedian drowning in flop sweat, imperiously refusing to discuss certain charges against him, but instead directing folks to his website, where the “truth” would be revealed the next day.
Yeah, that’s why I watch a debate, don’t you?
Maybe the next debate should be held at a county fair, where Newt could down corn dogs while the audience whoops it up as he tosses out one-liners?
Quote of the Day
Science may never come up with a better office communication system than the coffee break. - Earl Wilson